tees' Reports. In those documents it was observed, that when the Author says, that those graces are conveyed by the ordination, he of course means, to those who receive it worthily, and that otherwise the effect is different: so, at the close of the above proposition, the Author says, that the "[supplicated] promise,” with “the representative transfer," of the Holy Spirit, "is received by the clergyman [or minister] according to his faith of life." What the divinely instructed Herald of the New Church regarded as the laws of Divine Order with respect to the initiation into the ministry and the proper mode of it, is now rendered indubitable: and all that was advanced upon these subjects in the Inquiry and the Reports, is thus found to be established by his unequivocal authority. Trusting, Dear Brethren, that you will deem the above, on account of the testimony of our venerated Author which it brings to light, of sufficient importance to be printed with the Minutes, I am, your co-adjutor and servant to my power, in your labors for the establishment of the Lord's New Church, SAMUEL NOBI.E. Subjoined is a copy of the original Latin of the titles of the first three chapters of the work above mentioned respecting the Holy Spirit, and of the whole of the fourth chapter. DE SPIRITU SANCTO. CAP. I. Quod Spiritus Sanctus sit Divinum quod procedit a Deo Uno, Infinito, Omnipotente, Omnisciente, et Omnipræsente, per Humanum Ipsius in mundo assumptum. CAP. II. Quod Spiritus Sanctus, qui a Deo Uno per Humanum Ipsius procedit, in Essentia sua sit idem Deus, sed quod apparenter ad subjecta, quæ in spatiis sunt, sit Divinum Procedens. CAP. III. Quod Divinum quod vocatur Spiritus Sanctus, procedens a Deo per Humanum Ipsius, transeat per Cœlum Angelicum in mundum, ita per angelos ad homines. CAP. IV. Quod inde per homines ad homines, et in Ecclesia imprimis per clericos ad laicos. 1. Quod nemo possit accipere Spiritum Sanctum nisi a Domino Jesu Christo, quia ille a Deo Patre per Ipsum procedit. Per Spiritum Sanctum intelligitur Divinum Procedens. 2. Quod nemo possit Spiritum Sanctum, hoc est Divinum Verum et Bonum, accipere, nisi qui Dominum immediate adit, et simul in dilectione est. 3. Quod Spiritus Sanctus, hoc est Divinum Procedens, nunquam fiat hominis, sed quod constanter sit Domini apud illum. 4. Quod ideo Sanctum, quod intelligitur per Spiritum Sanctum, non inhæreat, et quod nec manet, nisi quamdiu homo, qui illud accipit, et in Dominum credit, et simul in doctrina veri ex Verbo est, et in vita secundum illam. 5. Quod Sanctum quod intelligitur per Spiritum Sanctum, non transferatur ab homine in hominem, sed a Domino per hominem in hominem. 6. Quod Deus Pater non mittat Spiritum Sanctum, hoc est, Divinum suum, per Dominum in hominem, sed quod Dominus mittat illum a Deo Patre. 7. Quod Clericus, quia ex Verbo docturus est doctrinam de Domino, deque Redemp tione et Salvatione ab Ipso, inaugurandus sit per sponsionem Spiritus Sancti, et per representationem translationis ejus; sed quod a Clerico recipiatur secundum fidem vitæ ejus. 8. Quod Divinum quod intelligitur per Spiritum Sanctum, a Domino per Clericum procedat ad laicum, per prædicationes secundum receptionem doctrinæ veritatis inde. 9. Et per sacramentum Sanetæ Cœnæ, secundum pænitentiam ante illud. To complete the sense, in English, of Prop. 7, it will be observed, that the word "[supplicated]" is prefixed to the word " promise," because it is evident that no man can give the Holy Spirit, he can only supplicate the Lord to give it, which, therefore, must be the author's meaning, although, on account of the brevity with which he has expressed himself, this is left to be inferred. But whether the necessity for the explanatory word in English be admitted, or not, is of little consequence. None will deny that ordinations, if performed at all, should be accompanied with prayer for the gift of the Holy Spirit to the person ordained: the only point that might admit a question was, whether there should also be a representation of the transfer thereof:" and this is unequivocally declared. None, also, it is supposed, will contend, that the imposition of the hands of the ordaining minister upon the head of the person ordained is not the representation alluded to. No. LI. ORIGIN OF THE NEW-CHURCH MINISTRY. On page 15 of our "Report on the Trine" there occur these sentences: "It is a matter of new-church history that such a clergy had in fact been formed;" and "The persons who called the first general conference were the same who had previously formed the first ministry of the new church." In proof of these assertions we here give an account of the first formation of a ministry by the new-church society of London, by which the first general conference was called. Although this paper has no manifest bearing upon the history of a trine in our ministry, it undoubtedly possesses much interest in its bearings upon the general history of our church, and therefore may very properly be inserted here as a "Document for History." As here given, it is taken from "The New Church Advocate," Vol. II., p. 172. It may be necessary to describe the mode adopted by the New Church to commence that institution, without deriving it from any authority heretofore recognized in the Christian world. As the New Jerusalem Church is altogether a New Church, distinct from the Old, of which it is written in the Revelation, chap. xx. 5, " Behold I make all things New;" it was conceived, that this declaration applies not only to the doctrines of the Church, but also to its institutions and ordinances of every kind, and among the rest to that of the Ordination of Ministers, whose authority to teach, and preach, and administer the sacraments, must be derived from the Lord alone in his own Church, and not from any Priesthood of a fallen, consummated, and finished Church This was precisely the situation of the primitive Christian Church, which derived no authority by succession from the regular Priesthood of the Jewish Church, but commenced its ordination within itself, from the immediate presence and authority of the Lord. Besides, how inconsistent would it have been, if not plainly impossible, to derive authority from the Old Church to oppose its own doctrines, and thus to undermine and subvert it from the very foundations! A kingdom, a city, a house, or a church, thus constituted, thus divided against itself, could not possibly stand. (Matt. xii. 25.) Among the male members present at the first Ordination, sixteen in number, besides the two, who by experience had been found qualified to officiate as Priests or Ministers of the New Church, no one entertained the most distant idea, that he had, in his individual capacity, the smallest right or authority to send forth laborers into the Lord's vineyard and hence it was plain to them, that the ordination could not commence in such a way, or by such individual authority. It was therefore suggested, that twelve persons should be selected from all the male members present, to represent the whole body of the Church; that those twelve should be chosen by lot; that when so chosen, they should all place their right hands upon the head of the person to be ordained and that one of these should be requested by the rest to read and perform the ceremony this proposal was acceded to, and adopted, for the following among other reasons: First, Because no individual person either in the Old Church or in the New, could be acknowledged by the Society as possessing in himself the smallest title to authority or pre-eminence over others, in a case of such vital importance to the interests of the Church at large. Secondly, Because the future prosperity and well-being of the Church required, that no time should be lost in forming an Institution, which should hereafter become an orderly and well-regulated safeguard for the protection, due administration, and succession of the sanctities of the Ministerial function. Thirdly, Because when the Apostles of the Lord found themselves in a somewhat similar situation, in consequence of the defection of one of their number, they, judging themselves incapable of determining who was most fit for the vacant office, from which Judas by transgression fell, had recourse to the drawing of lots, "That the Lord who knoweth the hearts of all men, might show which of the two persons (Barsabas or Matthias), proposed to fill up the place of Judas, he had chosen." (Acts i. 24.) Fourthly, Because again on another occasion the drawing of lots was adopted as a decision of the Divine Providence, when there did not appear to be sufficient ground for the determination of human judgment. See the treatise on Influx, or on the Intercourse between the Soul and Body, n. 19, first edition, in quarto; from which the following extract is taken: "Do not suppose, that this lot came to hand by mere chance; but know, that it is by Divine direction, that so you, who could not discover the truth because of the confusion of your minds, might have it thus presented to you in the way of your own choosing." Such being the situation of the Church, and such the reasons for proceeding in the way described, we shall here annex an extract from the Minute book of the Society, in which the first ordination took place. It is as follows: "ORDINATION OF MINISTERS IN THE NEW CHURCH. "Sunday, June 1, 1788. "At a full meeting of the members of the New Church this day, in Great East Cheap, after the morning service, it was unanimously agreed to ordain JAMES HINDMARSH and SAMUEL SMITH, as Ministers and Priests in the New Church, in the manner following; viz.-Twelve men to be chosen by lot out of the Society, as representatives of the New Church at large, and these to lay their right hands on the person ordained, agreeable to the form of O.dination. "The following persons drew lots for that purpose. "1. Robert Hindmarsh 2. Thomas Wright 3. Thomas Willdon 4. John Willdon 5. John Rainsford Needham 6. Manoah Sibly 7 Alexander Wilderspin 8. Richard Thompson 9. Samuel Bucknell 11. Daniel Richardson 15. Isaac Hawkins 16. John Sudbury. "And the lots fell on the twelve first mentioned, who appointed ROBERT HINDMARSH to read the service." A remarkable circumstance occurred on the occasion, and at the time of this ordination, which we shall relate in Mr. ROBERT IIINDMARSH'S Own words. Being (says he) Secretary to the Society, when it was determined that twelve men should be selected by lot from the body of the Church, to lay their hands on the heads of the persons to be ordained, it was my office to prepare the tickets. I accordingly made sixteen tickets, answering to the number of male persons present, members of the church, and marked twelve of them with a cross. Being desirous, for my own private satisfaction, to ascertain which of the twelve to be selected by lot it might please the Lord to appoint to read or perform the ceremony, I wrote, unknown to the rest of the society, upon one of the twelve tickets, thus marked with a cross, the word ORDAIN; I then put the This document shows that a ministry of the new and true christian church, called the New Jerusalem, which is now coming forward on earth, was first formed, in the city of London, June 1, 1788; and it very minutely and satisfactorily displays the reason for asserting that this ministry then sprung from "the divine auspices of the Lord.” No. LII. REV. WILLIAM MASON'S LETTER TO THE CENTRAL CONVENTION. The English General Conference has, for some years past, appointed members of its body, especially leading ministers, to address, in its name, the three conventions of the new church in America. The task of addressing the General Convention has been assigned to the president of the conference-that, doubtless, being deemed the oldest, largest and most respectable body of the church in this country. But that the addresses sent to the Western and Central Conventions might have the fuller sanction and credit of the General Conference, the writers of those addresses were directed, previously to transmitting them to this country, to submit them to the president of the conference, for the time being, that they might bear his countersignature as the seal of the conference in his approval. Such was the case in respect to the communication made by the Thirty-Ninth General Conference through the Rev. Woodville Woodman, to the Central Convention, and laid before this body in its seventh annual meeting. Of that conference the Rev. William Mason was president. To him, therefore, Mr. Woodman's communication to our convention was sent. But Mr. Mason, having seen something to disapprove in the Journal of the Central Convention in its sixth annual meeting,—not received by the General Conference, when Mr. Woodman was appointed to address our body,—and seeming to infer that the conference would not have directed such an address as Mr. Woodman's, if it had seen our Journal previously, does not sign it in his capacity of president of the conference without taking certain marked and severe exceptions to the Journal's contents. It is, in fact, thus subscribed: "Signed by me, WILLIAM MASON, as President of the Thirtyninth Conference, on the 11th March, 1847, but with the qualification set forth in the accompanying letter of the same date." This subscription, or endorsement, the publishers of Journal No. IX. have, in our opinion, very improperly omitted from Mr. Woodman's letter as printed in Appendix III. pp. 28, 29. For they have mutilated a document of the General Conference, in cutting off the official endorsement of its presiding officer. By this endorsement the conference was made responsible for the act of its servant, the president and it could only be erased by the express vote or order of that body itself; and not even by that, in strict propriety, after the document had been sent and received in its name. Hence, although the conference tacitly disapproved of the act of its president, by not acting on his letter to us, or publishing it in connection with its minutes, it has, nevertheless, suffered his endorsement to remain attached to Mr. Woodman's communication to us, as printed in the appendix to its last Minutes. (See Min. 40th Gen. Con., Ap. p. 88.) How could the General Conference have done otherwise? It could not mutilate its own document, as we have done for it. It could not, in truth, have published a communication as sent to our convention without the endorsement of its president, when that communication, as in fact received and read in the annual meeting of our body, |